Errr. People won't shut up because people like CNN keep pushing it and pushing it. Did you watch the video? That has nothing to do with the CNN Truth Squad guys running a fake story and losing their jobs. The guy on the elevator says 'CNN has no proof against Trump' but are still running the russia crap for money. I'm sorry, but that's hack journalism...at best.

You guys are blowing this out of proportion. The guy has nothing to do with any of CNN's actual coverage of the Russia-Trump, so basically you have one individual speaking his opinion whose only association with any of this is he works at CNN. Ever hear of confirmation bias?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fbsm

If you're whining and calling me names while having absolutely no facts to contribute then I must be on target

No even close bucko. You're literally the definition of a troll.

Quote:

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement.

He did it by asking Russia to steal US government's classified information residing on Hillary's servers. Here is Trump's full quote: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30000 emails that are missing".

This is a textbook collusion. It may even rise to a level of treason which is defined as "giving aid or counsel to an enemy state".

This fact alone is more than sufficient to start investigation into Trump and his cronies. Their suspicious dealings with the Russians and constant attempts at cover up only add more fuel to the investigation.

The rightwing propagandists lost their shit when Obama ate Dijon mustard but are more than willing to gloss over Trump's public collusion with a foreign adversary and dismiss a valid investigation as a "witch hunt". You can't make this stuff up.

Nonsense on so many levels. Don't pretend like you have any understanding of the law because it's obvious you don't. Damn Canuck apologists.

Investigations are predicated on evidence that an actual crime was committed.

No such thing exists and even the dems are admitting it......

This investigation is going to be a boat anchor hung around the necks of liberals in and outside of politics......

CNN, Washington Post and NY Times unethical behavior in this election cycle have decimated public trust in media (propaganda)

Of course there's evidence. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, at least to instigate an investigation. And evidence is different than proof; proof is based on the sufficiency of evidence.

I agree that as of yet there's no proof. But that's why there's an investigation: to gather evidence to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate proof. You don't need proof to start an investigation; by definition if you have sufficient evidence for proof, you wouldn't need an investigation in the first place.

Everybody makes mistakes but the difference is how they handle the aftermath:

1) Respectable and long-serving news organization like cnn.com own up to their mistakes: issue corrections, apologize and fire the responsible people. People's careers are at stake so they do their utmost to provide honest reporting.

2) Extremist rightwing scum like Sean Hannity and their ilk double-down on their lies even after they have been completely debunked (for example: the case of murdered DNC staffer). And Fox News and other right-wing media are responsible for giving such people a forum to poison people's minds.

The second crucial difference is the way the lie originates:

1) Respectable news organizations make mistakes during their investigative reporting because they must depend on anonymous sources: there is no other way to access sensitive information. It is inevitable that this sometimes results in lies but those were never intended.

2) Extreme rightwing news organizations (and the White House) originate the lie themselves on purpose therefore such a lie is not merely an unintended byproduct of imperfect investigative process but becomes a calculated political tool to mislead and deceive the masses.

I'm sorry but I can't let this stand.

CNN has been a shill for the left since before Bush-Gore. Very few people noticed because the language was subtle. The only difference is that their hubris made them sloppy and not care about being biased because of their contempt for the average American.

The reason CNN is a problem has nothing to do with their very leftwards bias. The problem CNN has is that they purport to be centrist and honest when they are not.

Cheers-mk

__________________

Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...

Lewi6, First of His Name, Destroyer of Careers, Master of Pole Positions, 6X WDC, Master of All Tracks, Scorer of Maximum Points, Whisperer of Tires, Minimizer of Fuel Utilization, Maximizer of Consistency in Finishing. Look Upon Him With DRED.

Of course there's evidence. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, at least to instigate an investigation. And evidence is different than proof; proof is based on the sufficiency of evidence.

I agree that as of yet there's no proof. But that's why there's an investigation: to gather evidence to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate proof. You don't need proof to start an investigation; by definition if you have sufficient evidence for proof, you wouldn't need an investigation in the first place.

I hope this isn't that hard to understand.

What in your opinion would constitute circumstantial evidence in this example?

There isnt even an allegation of a crime....having a conversation with a foreigner even if true does not constitute a crime...nor does having foreign investments, bank accts etc

Furthermore how is whatever circumstantial evidence wrt the GOP election team different than what exists for actual crimes committed by the DNC side of the house

My biggest problem is the selective application of justice/laws for ANY reason

What in your opinion would constitute circumstantial evidence in this example?

There isnt even an allegation of a crime....having a conversation with a foreigner even if true does not constitute a crime...nor does having foreign investments, bank accts etc

Furthermore how is whatever circumstantial evidence wrt the GOP election team different than what exists for actual crimes committed by the DNC side of the house

My biggest problem is the selective application of justice/laws for ANY reason

If we care about the application of the law--selective or otherwise--the Country deserves an investigation into whether there were violations of the laws/regs listed below. Any suggestion that the Country shouldn't investigate is shady. Period. Whatever your politics.

You know back in the day when journalists were worth their spit..
boy was that a long long time ago
when journalists would be allowed to bring down guys like tricky Dickie
those days are long gone
its all now just propoganda
so why argue over it (MSM)
I see it as WWF .. its their fantasy re-enactment of what really happened or didnt happen at all.. its pathetic entertainment for me

If we care about the application of the law--selective or otherwise--the Country deserves an investigation into whether there were violations of the laws/regs listed below. Any suggestion that the Country shouldn't investigate is shady. Period. Whatever your politics.

If we care about the application of the law--selective or otherwise--the Country deserves an investigation into whether there were violations of the laws/regs listed below. Any suggestion that the Country shouldn't investigate is shady. Period. Whatever your politics.

absent clear evidence of a crime having been committed there's no legal basis for a criminal investigation

Agreed, but at the local or state level, the standard to initiate an investigation is generally reasonable suspicion. So, "clear evidence" could also mean "specific and articulable facts."

A congressional investigation, on the other hand, gets its authority from its implied legislative power. As such, the standards are broader. E.g., "high crimes and misdemeanors" as a basis for impeachment.

And in the case of the DOJ, Mueller is appointed under the Special Counsel Regulation. I'd expect reasonable suspicion to be the appropriate standard for investigating criminal activity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fbsm

The Obama administration and FBI were well versed in Russian and other nations attempts to hack various entities in the US for more than a year prior to the 2016 election

Yet, under their watch they did nothing......they KNEW that there were entities trying to hack the GOP/DNC and various others but came out and DENIED it

Alternative facts here. If your point is that failed to do enough, I'd agree. But, Obama publicly accused Russia of hacking in October. Also met with Putin. Wasn't nearly enough though. To me it's simple. There is strong evidence that Russia attempted to influence our election, and I expect the President--yes, both Obama and Trump--to get to the bottom of it. If there's nothing to hide, what's wrong with the investigation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zippster

Wait, you are talking about Clinton right?

Also simple. I'm talking about any person subject to our laws where facts give rise to reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred.

Agreed, but at the local or state level, the standard to initiate an investigation is generally reasonable suspicion. So, "clear evidence" could also mean "specific and articulable facts."

A congressional investigation, on the other hand, gets its authority from its implied legislative power. As such, the standards are broader. E.g., "high crimes and misdemeanors" as a basis for impeachment.

And in the case of the DOJ, Mueller is appointed under the Special Counsel Regulation. I'd expect reasonable suspicion to be the appropriate standard for investigating criminal activity.

Alternative facts here. If your point is that failed to do enough, I'd agree. But, Obama publicly accused Russia of hacking in October. Also met with Putin. Wasn't nearly enough though. To me it's simple. There is strong evidence that Russia attempted to influence our election, and I expect the President--yes, both Obama and Trump--to get to the bottom of it. If there's nothing to hide, what's wrong with the investigation?

Also simple. I'm talking about any person subject to our laws where facts give rise to reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred.

So, what was going on originally was what was called a "Counterintelligence Investigation"

Not to be confused with a "Criminal Investigation"

Reasonable Suspicion is generally characterized by a "Hunch" absent proof or "Probable Cause" which is actually whats required.

As it stands there's no allegation that an actual crime has been committed.

To add insult to injury, Mueller is not constitutionally able to charge trump even if he were to allege that he had done something.

You cant charge a sitting president with a crime........this is very well established not only by courts but the DoJ

the only recourse is to Impeach....and that is only applicable to high crimes and misdemeanors

Our top intelligence agencies spent nearly a year investigating already and came up with nothing

Comey testified that Trump wasnt under investigation

Multiple Sens from both parties have acknowledged that there's no unclass or class evidence that supports any criminal actions

Hell, even the allegations that post election, that Jared K sought to establish a secure means of communicating with russian officials during the transition period isnt out of the ordinary let alone criminal

There is quite literally nothing criminal let alone inappropriate that has even been alleged.........so how is this not a proverbial witch hunt?

If there were even a hint of a crime I would be all for investigation.......but unless you're willing to forever plunge this country into a pisshole where anyone could be investigated at any time with no evidence to support it and in doing so abolish liberty/freedom and reduce the nation to an east german stasi pisshole.........

Yet, under their watch they did nothing......they KNEW that there were entities trying to hack the GOP/DNC and various others but came out and DENIED it

Why were the most recent sanctions imposed against Russia? Why were 2 Russian compounds seized in the US?

Sounds to me like the previous administration DID do something about, yet Trump is trying to undo it, and you are not admitting that. Again, being dishonest to defend your team. fbsm, again your lack of integrity is showing.

Alternative facts here. If your point is that failed to do enough, I'd agree. But, Obama publicly accused Russia of hacking in October. Also met with Putin. Wasn't nearly enough though. To me it's simple. There is strong evidence that Russia attempted to influence our election, and I expect the President--yes, both Obama and Trump--to get to the bottom of it. If there's nothing to hide, what's wrong with the investigation?
.

Obama made a single passing statement in October of 2016 regarding "active measures" the russians were allegedly taking and he explicitly avoided mention of Putin.

It was classic limp wristed Obama.

Look at the lack of response to the OPM hack which actually HAS been attributed to China

We can rinse and repeat across a huge swath of public/private entities and every step of the way nothing was done of substance.

It wasnt until after Clinton lost and the butt hurt set in that his legacy was in jeparody that Obama took ANY action....way too little and years too late